Why Michelle’s Speech Matters
I perfectly understand the objection to the “spouse speech” at the convention. Neither Michelle nor Cindy will be President and neither will set Presidential policy, no matter how passionate their support may be for a particular issue. The most active First Ladies in history – Abigail Adams, Eleanor Roosevelt, Hillary Clinton – all advanced policy positions their husbands agreed with. The President is the Head of Government and everybody takes their cue from him or her.
But the role of First Lady is important because of the second component of the Presidency: Head of State. This role is much more symbolic and requires a sort of visceral connection that can’t be planned on paper. It isn’t just that First Ladies have the ear of the President, or that they reflect on the values of her husband – though that’s important. It’s that they, themselves, are representatives of the nation to the world at large. Indeed, one of the few saving-graces of the Bush Presidency is Laura, not because of any policy position she advances but because of her attractive persona.
And this is why Michelle Obama’s speech last night matters so much. American voters really do think about the future First Lady when voting for President. Theresa Heinz Kerry, for example, was a genuine drag on John Kerry’s ticket. Her speech in 2004 wasn’t just bad. She was downright weird. It projected a woman whom nobody could relate to, and it confirmed the worst stereotypes of the Kerrys as a family unrepresentative of the best of America.
Michelle Obama’s speech, on the other hand, showed a woman confident in the multiple roles that modern women must fulfill. Though a lawyer and activist, she is also a mother, sister, wife and daughter. And the way she described the balance between all those elements clearly resonated with those watching her.
She also radiated a stunning beauty, though not of the sort Americans are used to seeing in a First Lady. Watching the video narrated by her mother it finally hit me that we could really be electing an African-American family to the White House. It was so different in some ways, but also so reassuring. She shows a “real America” so often ignored in our politics where white men dominate. It was, in a word, America’s best face on display. It made a mockery of the idiotic “angry black woman” chants from some corners, and it demonstrated why Michelle Obama has been such an asset to Barack all along.
There’s another, more immediate reason why the speech mattered: Hillary voters. There’s a reason you saw few dry eyes in that convention hall – or in my home – during this speech. We connected with her as a woman in a way many of us never connected with Barack. One of the strongest criticisms of Barack Obama from female Hillary supporters was that Barack Obama seemed so aloof and disconnected. Many voters simply could not connect with him and his rhetoric. His words seemed to come not from the stirrings of his heart, but from the musings of his brain. They’re inspiring, but they seem a bit empty. That’s the sense I’ve gotten in conversations with Hillary supporters I know. It’s been a major point of hesitation for them.
Michelle’s speech directly connected with women in ways that no speech from Barack has ever done. It drew from the same philosophical core as Barack – a pragmatic idealism – but it wove the message in a compelling narrative that women could connect with. Her invocation of the 88th anniversary of women’s suffrage and the 45th anniversary of the “I Have a Dream” speech, and her story of her devotion to her father and her mother’s dedication to the family pulled the whole picture together in ways we haven’t really heard yet from the Obamas. She showed that Barack was not just an iconic “celebrity” who stood apart from the people, but a genuine husband and father with quirks and flaws like any other. Unlike so many other political families today, it was a refreshing window into a non-dysfunctional family. No star-studded tales of adultery or drugs. Just a real live family.
I’m well aware that many Democrats thought this was a missed opportunity to go out on the attack. But somehow I imagine today and tomorrow will be filled with anti-Bush/McCain red meat. Even better, I bet it comes from Hillary Clinton. But before we could get to that, Michelle Obama had to sell herself to the American public as a First Lady. Oh, and Ted Kennedy’s inspiring appearance helped unify Democrats of all stripes too.
For those wanting red meat, it will come today. But last night was absolutely essential in the marketing of a Head of State that Americans could feel comfortable with.
8 Responses to “Why Michelle’s Speech Matters”
[...] [...]
A-men Elrod. I am a total sap, but when Michele was talking about driving her first daughter home from the hospital I really teared up. The strength of the Obama family does appeal to me. They might support policies that in some way are liberal, but they have a very conservative family life, free of divorce and adultery. Is this a make or break? No of course not, and I think Jazz's point about coverage and debate over the rules/platform is probably valid, but if nothing else, Michele reassures me that there will not be a divorce drama or marital meltdown/impeachment issue in the middle of a national crisis. That is not insignificant.
Someone at Slate commented that Michele made hope cool again, what a terrific change to the past couple of weeks.
On the other hand I wonder if Obama's successful marriage is in someway part of Bill Clinton's problem with Obama? Does his resentment stem from envy over Obama's self -discipline? Just wondering?
This is a feel-good convention and this was meant to be a feel-good occasion on the light first night. The speech was fine. It verged into the narcissistic — I tired of hearing about me, me, me and Barack, Barack, Barack, and wanted to know more about what the Obama administration wants to do, in concrete terms, not merely feel-good stuff. But that's this convention's theme so far and the speech was good,
meriting an eight or a nine on a scale of ten. If people were worried, erase the worry.
“I’m well aware that many Democrats thought this was a missed opportunity to go out on the attack.”
Not just Dems and libs noticed this. Oh, well, this was the lighter-stuff warmup and extra feel-good stuff the first night and there is the rest of the week to get into the details of not only attacking the GOP but laying out (honestly? hmmm) what an Obama administration (and Congressional Dems) will do starting in January.
My “Amen,” too, Elrod.
Michelle's speech did matter. First Ladies do matter.
What is ironic is that many of the very same people who claim that the words or actions of First Ladies–or of any other politicians' spouses–”don't matter” when they say or do something good, are the first ones to use these ladies' words or deeds to pounce upon their husbands when the ladies commit a gaffe.
I agree that Michelle giving a speech was important. I don't know why some voters have a problem with “the spouse speech”. If Hillary had been nominated you know Bill would have given “the spouse speech”.
At any rate, the Dems (and Reps) can choose whoever they want to give a speech at their convention. The real question is whether any particular speech has an impact.
I agree with DLS, the first night was a feel good night. I think it was the appropriate way to start the convention. The Dems will have plenty of opportunity to bash Bash/McCain. I think a lot of viewers did tune into the first night and the last thing they wanted to see was another round of political attacks. The majority of Americans want a more civil discourse in politics. The first night is an excellent way to show the country that politics is not all about attack.
Besides the theme of the convention is “One Nation”. The Dems will have to be careful in bashing the Bush/Cheney and McCain platform, lest the bashing be seen as an attack on the GOP in general. Not a good way to promote the uniting of America. I think if the theme was something like “One Party” then the Dems would have gone on the GOP attack from Day 1, second #1.
[...] the other side, one of Jazz’s co-bloggers at TMV argues that the “job” of First Lady (or should I say First Spouse to be politically corr… [T]he role of First Lady is important because of the second component of the Presidency: Head of [...]
A feel good convention is necessary for Democrats to heal their divisions and concentrate on reclaiming the WH. If they fail to do this, they will have wrapped the '08 election up and handed it to McCain as a gift. There's too much at stake to allow interparty sniping to distract them. They need to move past Obama's treatment of Hillary and disappointment with the Edwards', or another “easy” election will turn into a loss.